LORENTZIAN DYNAMICS. Ronald R. Hatch, 1142 Lakme Ave., Wilmington, CA 90744

Transcription

1 LORENTZIAN DYNAMICS. Ronal R. Hatch, 114 Lakme Ave., Wilmington, CA A number of moern physicists have espouse some form of absolute ether theory. But any such theory must explain a number of experiments via ynamic forces in place of the SRT kinematic explanation. This paper attempts to resolve a number of these experimental issues an to provie a coherent explanation of the apparent relativity which results. The specific stimulus for this paper was provie by Sherwin s experiment which attempte to etect irectly the Lorentz-Fitzgeral length contraction. However, the Sherwin experiment is generalize herein to thought experiments involving gravitational an electromagnetic interactions. The appropriate force equations are explore for a mass particle in a gravitational orbit an for a charge particle in an electrostatic orbit. The requirement of apparent relativity while angular momentum an energy are conserve puts very specific an precise limits on the form of the force equations. Ironically, the electromagnetic Lorentz force oes not meet the requirements. Neither oes the Ampere force law. Only the Gauss-Riemann- Whittaker force law has the appropriate functional epenence.

2 Lorentzian Dynamics Presente at the AAAS SWARM Division Santa Fe, New Mexico 13 April 1999 Ronal R. Hatch 114 Lakme Avenue Wilmington, CA Introuction Einstein was le to the positivistic assumption that all inertial frames are equivalent because he foun that no measurement coul provie a criterion for simultaneity that woul give the same result for all observers. The special relativity theory (SRT) an non-simultaneity of time are built upon inertial frame symmetry [1]. But the iscovery of the cosmic backgroun raiation (CBR) falsifies Einstein s funamental assumption. If we efine the absolute inertial frame as that inertial frame which causes the CBR to appear most uniform in temperature (isothermal) a simple criterion for simultaneity exists. Specifically, we assign an isotropic spee of light to the CBR frame an for all other frames the spee of light is assigne an anisotropic value equal to the vector sum of the CBR light spee ae to the velocity of the frame with respect to the CBR frame. The velocity of each inertial frame is etermine from the irection an magnitue of the ipole temperature istribution of the CBR in that frame. Using the spee of light velocities so efine allows one to specify a common time, which exhibits a common simultaneity inepenent of the frame velocity. In spite of this emonstrable falsification of the founation of SRT, it lives on, being firmly embee in the ossifie mins of establishment physics. Too much is at stake to amit the error. But, the experimental evience cries out for some form of the ether of Lorentz an Poincare. Several years ago, while arguing with some establishment physicists on the internet, I was tol in no uncertain terms that any ifference between SRT an Lorentzian relativity was purely metaphysical. I have argue elsewhere [1] that such is not the case. However, I want to present a new an more powerful argument here. Specifically, SRT ascribes all the relativistic effects to kinematics an the source of the effects are left to some magical property of space-time, i.e. no causative agent is ever ientifie. By contrast, if there is an absolute ether frame, the relativistic effects must be ue to ynamic forces rather than kinematics an an explanation of the forces is neee. But, if we can fin the forces involve, the elightful rewar is a conservation of energy an momentum across all inertial frames. Two experiments stimulate this paper. The first was Sherwin s experiment which attempte to etect the Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction []. In fact, in a prior paper [3], I criticize his experiment for failing to consier the change of mass with velocity an showe that, when mass change is consiere, the

3 conservation of momentum implie length contraction. In this paper, the analysis is extene to the conservation of energy as well. The secon stimulus was only a thought experiment. Carpenter [4] suggeste that an exploing clou of electrons in a very high spee frame woul, because of magnetic forces in a stationary frame, become a longituinal pencil beam of electrons capable of oing boily harm to the stationary observer. The analysis herein shows that the opposite woul occur. Specifically, Carpenter ignore aitional effects which woul cause the high spee clou of electrons to flatten like a pancake in the longituinal irection. After some preliminary arguments, iealize versions of these two experiments will be analyze in etail. Backgroun Before proceeing a summary of the major features of my moifie Lorentz ether theory (MLET) is neee: The light meium is an elastic soli ether Matter is a staning wave within the ether The ether reaction time etermines the spee of light, c. Because of the internal motion of the matter staning wave an the ether reaction time, the internal ether ensity is reuce an the external ether ensity is increase. The spee of light is a function of the ether ensity The external ether ensity an its affect on the spee of light affects the staning wave energy of external matter an gives rise to gravitational potential. Electric potential is cause by a phase variation in the ether ensity cause by the rotation of the unerlying staning wave. Magnetic potential is cause by a phase variation in the ether shear resulting from motion of an electric potential. Analogous to the magnetic potential there is a kinetic potential (calle gravitomagnetic potential by relativists) which is cause by ether shear resulting from motion of a gravitational potential. Because matter is a staning wave structure, it is affecte by the two way velocity of light with respect to it an, thus, contracts in the longituinal irection when put in motion. The gravitational mass ecreases with velocity. (see [5]) The kinetic energy is twice the classical amount an increases with velocity. The inertial mass is compose of both the gravitational mass (structural energy ivie by the spee of light square) an the kinetic mass (kinetic energy ivie by the spee of light square) The inertial mass increases with velocity. Ieal clocks run slower when moving relative to the absolute ether frame or when move to a region of increase ether ensity (ecrease gravitational potential). 3

4 Light Clocks Theoretically, a light clock can be constructe by measuring the time interval for light to make a roun trip between two mirrors. The frequency of raiation from a laser is a close approximation to such a light clock. When this clock is given a velocity with respect to the CBR, the roun trip time of the light beam is increase an the output frequency is ecrease. If the light path is orthogonal to the motion, the increase travel time is cause irectly by the extra istance the beam must travel. If the light path is aligne with the motion the increase travel time is also cause by the extra istance travele. However, the physical contraction of the longituinal istance is require to make the light travel time equal to that of the transverse beam. Figure 1 illustrates the transverse an longituinal light beams for a clock traveling at 0.6 the spee of light. c = v = (c-v) + = (c+v) c Figure 1 THE LIGHT CLOCK TRANSVERSE AND LONGITUDINAL Mechanical Clocks The olest clocks known are mechanical clocks. The spinning earth is such a clock. The orbit of the moon aroun the earth is such a clock. The orbit of the earth aroun the sun is such a clock. An iealization of these orbital clocks will be consiere in some etail later. For now, we note that a small mass in orbit aroun a very large mass will appear to behave much like the han of a clock. But, if we impart a common translational velocity to both boies, the clock will run slower. The slowing is cause by the increase inertial mass an (as we shall see later) a ecrease force. Ellipses, Circles an Observers Transformations Assuming Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction, when a velocity is imparte to a spherical object, it will be eforme into a prolate ellipsoi. An ellipse is obtaine when this ellipsoi is cut by any plane containing the velocity vector. Figure shows such an ellipse together with a circle representing a non-moving sphere cut through its center by the same plane. Designating the original iameter of the sphere as an applying the stanar contraction formula gives a semiminor axis of /. Where is given by: 1 (1) v 1 c 4

5 For illustrative purposes, a high velocity of 0.6 the spee of light is chosen. This results in a value of of 1.5 an a value of 0.8 for the inverse. / Figure LORENTZ-FITZGERALD CONTRACTION DUE TO A VELOCITY OF 0.6 THE SPEED OF LIGHT Using the assumptions given earlier it is quite easy to construct the transformation from the absolute frame to the moving frame. This transformation is calle the Tanghlerini or Selleri transformation an is easily escribe. Note the transformation, repeate here, escribes the results of mapping measurements taken with stationary instruments in the stationary frame to theoretical measurements taken with moving instruments. I have appene to this time an position transformation the inertial an gravitational mass transformation for completeness. The following equations are use to map measurements in the absolute frame to the measurements which the moving instruments woul ascribe to the parameters measure. ta tm () x m ( x vt ) a (3) a M a M m (4) m (5) m m a 5

6 The first equation says that for the same elapse time the moving clock will rea a smaller number than the absolute clock. This is because the units of measure time are larger in the moving frame than in the absolute frame. Similarly, the secon equation first ajusts for the position of the moving axis an then scales the istance up to account for the fact that the units of istance in the moving frame are smaller. The y an z measurements o not nee transformation since they are not affecte by the motion when that motion is along the x axis. Equations (4) an (5) are the result of recent work in which I have foun it necessary to istinguish between inertial mass an gravitational mass. They also reflect the fact that the kinetic energy is twice that conventionally ascribe to it. Thus, the inertial mass in equation (4) as measure in the absolute frame translates into a lower inertial mass when measure in the larger units of the inertial mass in the moving frame. The results for the gravitational mass are just the opposite as shown in equation (5). Note that in the absolute frame with stationary mass M a m a (6) but, in the moving frame the ifference is the kinetic energy (when scale by the spee of light square). K E 1 mav c ( mm M m) c ( ) ma (7) which is twice that classically assigne to the kinetic energy. There are several convincing arguments that inicate kinetic energy is not acte upon by the gravitational potential. First, it is irectly analogous to the magnetic energy not being acte upon by the electric potential. Secon, even though the General Theory of Relativity (GRT) teaches that all energy is acte upon by the gravitational potential, it is clearly true that electromagnetic raiation is excepte. The bening of light is a refraction effect an not ue to the action of the gravitational potential. There is no change in the energy of falling electromagnetic raiation. The apparent change in energy is ue to the change in the units of the measuring apparatus at ifferent gravitational potentials. Thir, the gravitational equations evelope in a previous paper [5] emane that the kinetic energy not be acte upon by gravity. Finally, the gravitational potential appears to be ue to the fact that a smaller amount of staning wave structural energy is neee for quantize matter in a more ense ether. Thus, a staning wave particle in the presence of an ether ensity graient is acte upon by that graient of ether ensity (gravitational potential) so that it traes some of its internal structural energy for kinetic energy. But, obviously there is no gravitational mechanism for traing kinetic energy into further kinetic energy. 6

7 Equations () through (5) represent the expane form of the Tanghlerini- Selleri transformation of measure values. However, often it is the information as to what movement oes to the units which is of interest. In this regar, I fin that motion causes a scaling by or by its inverse such that: Lengths contract Clocks have larger units, i.e. they slow own Inertial mass increases Gravitational mass ecreases The inverse Tanghlerini-Selleri transformation is obtaine by replacing by its inverse an vice versa. Let us return to the ellipse an circle of figure an ask what an observer traveling with the moving ellipse woul see if he were force to observe using the finite velocity of the spee of light. Figure 3 is an omniscient top view of the situation. Omniscient because we have assume for illustrative purposes an infinite velocity for our observations of the situation. v c c v c v = vv cc = / + vv cc / / v/ v / Figure 3 OMNISCIENT TOP VIEW IN ABSOLUTE FRAME In the top left corner of Figure (3) is a small vector iagram showing the relative geometry of the light beam an an object traveling at 0.6 the spee of light. In the main portion of the figure two incoming light rays are shown as light otte lines angling upwars to the right. These light rays are assume to come from the observer traveling with the contracte ellipse but at some istance, y, 7

8 away. (Thus, the two light rays are parallel to one another.) The left most ray strikes the trailing ege of the semiminor axis of the ellipse an the other strikes the leaing ege. Both rays arrive at an angle (the aberration angle) because they left the observer at some prior time an must be aime at an angle in orer to arrive at the moving ellipse, which is shown as a horizontal line of length /. Because of the angle of approach, the left most ray will arrive at the ellipse first. In fact, as shown in the figure that first ray will travel an extra istance of v/c before the secon ray will strike the leaing ege of the ellipse. Diviing that istance by the spee of light gives us the amount ot time elapse an multiplying that time by the velocity of the ellipse gives us the istance that the leaing ege will travel before the secon ray of light reaches it. v (8) c v x (9) c Aing this istance onto the length of the semiminor axis gives the total separation in the x axis of the point where the left ray an the right ray strike the two ens of the axis: v (10) c The extra movement uring the time the light beam is illuminating the axis is shown as the ark portion of the horizontal axis in Figure 3 an, as shown, causes the apparent length of the moving axis to be longer than even the nonmoving iameter of the circle. (Marke off as the length in the figure). Finally, note that these x axis istances will be ecrease by the inverse of when the reflecte light is mappe into the simultaneity (common wave front) plane of the light beam. Thus, the moving observer sees the moving shortene ellipse as a circle an the stationary circle as a shortene ellipse. This is exactly the inverse of what the stationary observer in the absolute frame sees. We have apparent relativity. In fact, as shown in a prior paper [3], if the istance x is substitute in place of in equation (8), the time bias is precisely the amount obtaine by Einstein synchronization an causes the Tanghlerini-Selleri transformation to be the same as the forwar Lorentz transformation. The reverse transformation remains ifferent because using the anisotropy of the CBR we know that the time bias must be unone before the reverse Tanghlerini-Selleri transformation is applie. The results of this section are summarize in Figure 4. Reality shows that the correct transformations are the Tanghlerini-Selleri transformations. But the apparent Lorentz transformations are much more practical for local physics. However, if we want to keep the physics straight, the unerlying absolute frame is the point of reference. It is clear that switching frames in the mile of an 8

9 experiment is invali. Lorentz boosts have no physical basis. In other wors, we o not have real relativity, we have apparent relativity. This leas to practical causal explanations for such things as the twin paraox an, as we shall see later, Thomas precession. Isothermal CBR Isotropic Light Spee ABSOLUTE FRAME MOVING FRAME slower contracte increase APPARENT LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION clock rate faster length expane apparent mass ecrease aparent relativity of simultaneity a MODIFIED LORENTZ ETHER THEORY time bias remove PROJECTION TO / FROM SIMULTANEITY PLANE TANGHERLINI / SELLERI TRANSFORMATION clock rate slower length contracte apparent mass increase time simultaneity faster expane ecrease MOVING FRAME Anisothermal CBR Apparent Isotropic Light Spee Anisothermal CBR Anisotropic Light Spee Figure 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRAMES Sherwin s Experiment Continue Sherwin performe an experiment [] with a resonant spinning mass, which he claime provie evience that Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction oes not occur. In my earlier paper [3], I showe that Sherwin s experiment was faulty in that it ignore the increase of inertial mass with velocity. By incluing the increase of inertial mass with velocity, I was able to show that angular momentum was conserve only if Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction i in fact occur. The hole left in my earlier paper was that I i not show that energy was conserve. That is at least partially remeie in this paper. Review Conservation of Angular Momentum Figure 5 shows the results of the prior paper. The conservation of momentum emans that, when the spin velocity of an orbiting particle is in the same irection as the translational velocity, the inertial mass will increase an hence the spin velocity will slow. This slowing of the spin velocity allows the center of spin to gain on the orbital position an the orbit is thereby flattene. A similar symmetrical process occurs in the opposite half of the orbit where the spin 9

10 velocity is increase. The center of spin oes not move as far an the orbit is flattene on the other sie as well. Spin Velocity Translational Velocity Figure 5 Effects of Momentum Conservation The spokes are inclue in Figure 5 to show what the effect of spin velocity is on the the rate of rotation. In the figure the spokes woul be 30 egrees apart if the wheel were not spinning. Furthermore the istortion of the spoke position is also consistent with the Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction an illustrates the source of Thomas precession. Thomas precession arises ue to the length contraction in the upper half of the figure an the resulting offset in the center of mass position. Of course, as observe in experiment, Thomas precession with this mechanism occurs only when spin velocity is present an only when the force acts on the center of spin rather than the center of mass. Muller [6] makes an attempt to give the same explanation for Thomas precession using SRT. But it oes not work because SRT claims the effect is present whenever a curve path is followe even if it is not spinning. Mullers figure with its curve spokes is also incorrect. The spin contraction effect is clearly linear in the spin velocity. Thus it isplaces the spokes in angle it oes not cause them to ben or unergo shear forces. Because gravitational forces act on the center of mass, gravitational forces o not cause Thomas precession. Finally, when the physically istorte shape an spoke location are projecte into the simultaneity plane of Figure 3 (i.e. the position is moifie to account for the clock bias), by looking at the position at a later point in time for negative x positions an earlier in time for positive x positions, the shape of the wheel will 10

11 appear circular an the spokes will appear to be equally space at 30 egree intervals. Iealize Gravitational Experiment Conservation of Energy The constraint of conservation of momentum was significant. What can be learne from conservation of energy? Conservation of energy while the velocity is changing requires the existence of forces, an we must leave behin the kinematics of SRT. While Sherwin s experiment was concerne with intermolecular forces an hence ultimately electromagnetic forces. In our MLET, gravitational forces are somewhat simpler to eal with than electromagnetic forces an we consier those forces first. To o so, the experiment is iealize by making the central mass much heavier than the orbiting particle an a translation velocity of the entire orbiting pair is assume. From the conservation of momentum, we alreay know that the orbit must be flattene by the traitional Lorentz-Fitzgeral amount when the translation velocity is in the orbital plane an, furthermore, this flattening of orbit is inepenent of spin velocity (i.e. of orbital raius). This means that it is vali to consier separately the forces resulting from the common translation velocity an the forces resulting from the prouct of the translation an spin velocities. It is commonly assume in GRT that motion of a large gravitational mass creates a fiel similar to the magnetic fiel generate by motion of an electromagnetic charge. Such fiels are referre to as gravitomagnetic fiels. In my book [7], I calle such fiels kinetic fiels an I still prefer that name since they are, I believe, associate with the kinetic energy with respect to the absolute CBR frame. In terms of unerlying mechanism, I believe, the kinetic fiel is a shear fiel, while a magnetic fiel is an oscillating shear fiel with apparent phase motion. In any case, I believe that the kinetic force laws are essentially ientical in form to the magnetic force laws between charges of the same sign. But the form of the magnetic force law is a subject of consierable controversy, especially within the issient physics community. Most within that community rule out the (ironically name) Lorentz force law because it clearly oes not obey Newton s thir law. That leaves most of the issients favoring Ampere force law. But I have argue in my book that the Gauss, Rieman, Whittaker (GRW) force law is the correct one. The istinction between these latter two force laws is their interpretation of or aitional constraint on Newton s thir law. Newton s thir law is given as [8]: To every action there is always oppose an equal reaction or the mutual actions of the two boies upon each other are always equal, an irecte to contrary parts. The ifference between the Ampere an the GRW force laws are in the constraint implie by the last phrase irecte to contrary parts. The Ampere force law results from constraining the forces to be irecte along the line joining the boies involve, while the GRW force law only requires that the forces on the two boies to be oppositely irecte, i.e. they nee not be along the line joining the two boies. I favore the GRW force law because it allowe the irection of the forces to be etermine by the graient of the magnetic lines of force which in my limite experience 11

12 allowe a torque to be present between two magnetic sources. But the Ampere force law oes not allow the presence of a torque between two current elements. As I showe in my book, the GRW force law, in contrast to the Ampere force law, has a very interesting property. Specifically, any two given current elements at a given separation istance yiel a force which is of constant amplitue only the irection of the force changes as the relative orientation of the two current elements is change. But, the strongest argument in favor of the GRW force law is the newly iscovere fact that, when aapte to the kinetic force between moving masses, it supplies precisely the force neee to conserve the energy of an orbit flattene by Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction. Kinetic Force from Common Velocity The MLET moel of gravitational potential is that its source is the graient of ether ensity. The ether ensity relaxation closely approximates an inverse raial epenence [5] but, because it is a function of the effective two-way spee of light, I believe that the potential is itself subject to Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction. The gravitational force results from the action of the local ether ensity graient upon the matter staning wave of the mass particle. This means that the apparent action of gravity is instantaneous an the irection of the force is that of the maximum graient. But, if the potential suffers Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction, this means that the gravitational force is itself not irecte along the line joining the two boies. Thus, we are face with the gravitational analog of the Trouton- Nobel electrostatic experiment. An aitional force is neee to cause the total force to be along the line joining the two boies else apparent relativity will be lost. The GRW kinetic force provies precisely the correct force vector to cause the combine gravitational an kinetic force to be irecte along the line joining the two boies when they have a common translation velocity with respect to the absolute CBR frame. The irection of the GRW force ue to the common translation velocity is shown in Figure 6. The common translation velocity is shown on the left at 45 egree intervals of the orbit. The irection of the force resulting from the GRW law is shown on the right at 45 egree intervals. The magnitue of the force is given by: GMmv f ( 1 1/ ) F F (11) r c where F is the gravitational force an is the ratio of the translation velocity to the spee of light. At 45 egrees this force is orthogonal to the gravity force an causes the total force to be irecte towar the central gravitational boy. As inicate above, the irection of the gravitational force is affecte by the translation velocity. The magnitue of the force is affecte also. The rate at which clocks run is affecte by the absolute velocity. Because GM contains units of inverse time square its value will be iminishe proportional to square. The gravitational mass of the orbiting boy is ecrease by half that amount. Even though the gravitational potential is flattene so that it is approximately the same at all points in the flattene orbit, the spatial erivative of that potential is greater at the 90 egree point in the orbit ue to the shorter raial istance. This larger graient causes the force to be increase by square at that point in the orbit. 1

13 Common Translation Velocity Resultant Kinetic Force Figure 6 Kinetic Force from the Common Translation Velocity The raial gravitational force variation from nominal in terms of ½ square is given in the table below at 0, 45, an 90 egrees as a function of the above factors. GM m Graient Kinetic (raial) Net 0 egrees (top) egrees egrees One unit of net ecrease force at each point in the orbit combines with the average increase in the inertial mass of the orbiting particle to cause the particle to orbit slower, i.e. the mechanical clock runs slower. The aitional ecrease in the net raial force is exactly that neee to cause the ecrease curvature of the orbit in the vicinity of 90 an 70 egrees. For an apparent spherical (in the moving frame) group of gravitating particles, the aitional reuce force in the line of the velocity vector woul cause the group to maintain its longituinal length contraction in the absolute frame as the group shrinks from gravitational an kinetic forces. Kinetic Force from the Prouct of Spin an Translation Velocities It is time to turn to the kinetic forces arising from the spin velocity. The left han sie of Figure 7 shows the spin velocity relative to the translation velocity. The irection of the kinetic force resulting is shown on the right han sie of Figure 7. The magnitue of the force is the same as that shown in equation (11), except it is no longer the translation velocity square in the numerator, but is, instea, the prouct of the translation an spin velocities. The irection of the force in the figure is always ownwar. Clearly, this causes the maximum an minimum kinetic energy to be at precisely the correct points in the orbit. The integral of the force across the iameter of the orbit correspons precisely to the energy ifference between the alignment of the spin velocity with the translation velocity an against the translation velocity. 13

14 Relative Spin Velocity Resultant Kinetic Force Figure 7 Kinetic Force from the Relative Spin Velocity The Electromagnetic Counterpart Assuming the electron suffers Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction, allows one to carry over the kinetic force from the common translation velocity, evelope above for kinetic forces, to the problem pose by Carpenter [4]. The only ifference woul appear to be the expansion of the clou of electrons as oppose to the contraction of the clou of particles. Unfortunately, nature is not so simple. Aitional complexity is reveale when an attempt is mae to explain the electric an magnetic forces of an electron orbiting a nucleus as both move with a common velocity relative to the absolute CBR frame. One fins that the magnetic forces are exactly opposite to the kinetic forces as shown in Figures 6 an 7. The solution is not obvious. Moels of Electrons an Particles I believe that the solution to the problem of magnetic forces ue to velocity in an absolute CBR frame lies in a better unerstaning of the electron itself. Nonrelativists have propose a number of moels in the literature. A few of them are iscusse below. Bergman [9] has propose a spinning ring moel for the electron. It has some interesting properties an has been use to construct some interesting atomic structure moels. But it oes nothing to help us resolve any velocity effect issues. Wolff [10] has propose an ingoing an outgoing staning wave structure for the electron to which he has recently ae a spin concept. Unfortunately, his moel (he says he has no moel that he just uses physical reality) epens upon magic. In aition, to the magic of the incoming wave, he has ae a magical 90 egree phase rotation at the center where the incoming wave is converte to an outgoing wave. Hill [11] an Kubel [1] present moels of generalize matter rather than electrons specifically. But they are interesting. I like Hill s result of moeling electromagnetic waves in a reflective box. But, as I previously argue, it i not 14

15 reflect the Lorentz-Fitzgeral contraction an so, in my opinion was somewhat faulty. Kubel shows the effect of a wave moving at the velocity of light insie a circular reflecting surface, which is given a translation velocity. His result shows promise for explaining the problem with magnetic forces as iscusse below. One clear plus for both Hill an Kubel is that, with their reflecting membrane, they are clearly not claiming (as Wolff oes) an exact match with physical reality. They are offering simplifie moels. Finally, I still like the electron moel offere in my book [7] better than the other alternatives. My brother, E, ae a translation velocity to a computerize moel of that electron. The translation velocity was constraine to move along the spin axis corresponing to an apparent physical constraint experimentally observe. The result was very interesting an very close to what Kubel s later simplifie moel preicte. The electron was eforme into an elongate (oblate) ellipsoi in the longituinal irection rather than a contracte (prolate) ellipsoi. While the stationary staning wave moel ha synchronous expansion an contraction cycles at the two ens of the spin axis, in the moving moel the expansion an contraction cycles were no longer synchronous. However, if a Lorentzian time bias is ae as a moving observer (or as another moving electron) woul see, the cycles become synchronous an the electron appears contracte. Incientally, there is no reason to require incoming waves (per Wolff) to create a staning wave structure. Hugens principle tells us that at all points of isturbance in a staning wave structure the isturbance will attempt to issipate in all irections simultaneously. The way forwar seems clear, but I must amit that I have not complete the evelopment. The electromagnetic force has some istinct ifferences from the gravitational. The gravitational force appears to be the irect result of the local ether ensity graient an hence appears to be instantaneous. That is not the case for the electric force. The electric force between two charges is, I believe, imparte at the point in space where the staning wave of the two charges is of equal length. This means that the electric force suffers retaration. This retaration means that the force irection an the surface of interaction between two charges is moifie by their translation velocity. From Kubel s moel an the computerize view of my moel, it seems clear that, though the orbit of an electron aroun the nucleus is contracte in the longituinal irection, the irection of the electric force will correspon to that of an elongate ellipse in the longituinal irection. Thus, the magnetic force, though in the opposite irection of the corresponing kinetic force, will cause the total force to point towar the center of the orbit. Thus, an explanation of the Trouton-Nobel experiment is obtaine, but the capacitor turning force which ha to be counteracte was exactly opposite that expecte in the original experiment. Figure 8 is an attempt to illustrate this effect. 15

16 Magnetic Force Electric Force Figure 8 Direction of Magnetic Forces Conclusion An attempt has been mae to explain the ynamic forces at work on moving particles in an absolute ether. If apparent relativity is to hol, some such ynamic force is require. For the gravitational an kinetic force the attempt was remarkably successful. The GRW force law provie precisely the force neee to conserve energy for both the translation velocity an the spin velocity effects. It argues very strongly that the GRW force law is the correct form of the force law rather than that of Lorentz or Ampere. The evelopment of the electromagnetic forces at work on moving charges in an absolute ether is not complete. But the way forwar has been outline an the continuing evelopment oes not appear to be overly ifficult. The goal is in sight. There is no nee for the kinematic magic of SRT. 16

17 References: 1. Hatch, Ronal R. (1999) Symmetry or Simultaneity, Galilean Electroynamics, (Yet to be publishe). Sherwin, Chalmers W. (1987) New Experimental Test of Lorentz s Theory of Relativity, Physical Review A, Vol. 35, No. 9, May 1, pp Hatch, Ronal R., (1996) A Moifie Lorentz Ether an Sherwin s Experiment, SWARM Conference, Northern Arizona Univ., June Carpenter, Donal G., (1998) Relativity an a Large, Dense Sphere of Electrons, Aperion, Vol. 5, No. 3-4, pp 5-53, October. 5. Hatch, Ronal R., (1999) Gravitation: Revising both Einstein an Newton, Galilean Electroynamics, (Yet to be publishe) 6. Muller, R. (199) Thomas Precession: Where is the Torque?, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 60, pp Hatch, Ronal R., (199) Escape from Einstein, Kneat, Wilmington, CA. 8. Dugas, Rene, (1988, 1955) A History of Mechanics, Dover, New York, p Bergman, D.L. an J.P. Wesley (1990) Spinning Charge Ring Moel of Electron Yieling Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electroynamics, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp 63-67, Sept/Oct. 10. Wolff, Milo, (1995) Beyon the Point Particle A Wave Structure for the Electron, Galilean Electroynamics, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp 83-91, Sept/Oct. 11. Hill, Charles M. (1997) The Dynamics of Matter via Maxwell s Equations, Galilean Electroynamics, Vol. 8, No., pp 3-9. March/April. 1. Kubel, Holger (1997) The Lorentz Transformations Derive from an Absolute Ether, Physics Essays, Vol. 10, No.3, pp